Recent literature has underscored the power of digital activism, but few studies have symmetrically examined its impact beyond domestic audiences and among illiberal regimes. The co-occurrence of mass protests in East and Southeast Asia in 2019–2021, when protesters called for help from international communities, offers a valuable opportunity to test the power of digital media. This study uses a data set of 154 million Twitter posts and a time-series model to contrast sets of collective action metrics and connective action metrics with a novel dependent variable—foreign politicians’ responses. We then analyze the directional, intensity, and time-lagged effects of the relevant cue-taking processes. We find that the new metrics are more potent in predicting responses from foreign politicians. Agency- and network-centered metrics also outperform number- and intensity-oriented metrics across the three cases. These findings have implications for the roles of opinion leadership and engagement networks in digital activism.
AdaySFarrellHFreelonD, et al. (2013) Watching from afar: media consumption patterns around the Arab Spring. American Behavioral Scientist57(7): 899–919.
2.
AlmeidaPSosaEUlateAC, et al. (2021) Protest waves and social movement fields: the micro-foundations of campaigning for subaltern political parties. Social Problems68(4): 831–851.
3.
BarberaPSteinert-ThrelkeldZC (2019) How to use social media data for political science research. In: CuriniLFranzeseR (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations. London: SAGE.
4.
BastosMTMerceaD (2016) Serial activists: political Twitter beyond influentials and the twittertariat. New Media & Society18(10): 2359–2378.
5.
BastosMTMerceaDCharpentierA (2015) Tents, tweets, and events: the interplay between ongoing protests and social media. Journal of Communication65: 320–350.
6.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
7.
BimberB (2017) Three prompts for collective action in the context of digital media. Political Communication34(1): 6–20.
8.
BoydD (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. London and New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 39–58.
9.
CarawayTL (2021) Labor’s reversal of fortune: contentious politics and executive aggrandizement in Indonesia. Social Movement Studies. Epub ahead of print 5December. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2021.2010529.
10.
CarenNAndrewsKTLuT (2020) Contemporary social movements in a hybrid media environment. Annual Review of Sociology46(1): 443–465.
11.
CarpenterRC (2007) Setting the advocacy agenda: theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly51(1): 99–120.
12.
ChanJMChenHTLeeFLF (2021) Cross-cutting discussion on social media and online political participation: a cross-national examination of information seeking and social accountability explanations. Social Media and Society7(3): 1–13.
13.
ChengEWLeeFLYuenS, et al. (2022) Total mobilization from below: Hong Kong’s Freedom Summer. China Quarterly251: 629–659.
14.
ChinJSongWWrightJ (2022) Personalization of power and mass uprisings in dictatorships. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 22June. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123422000114.
15.
DavisJLChouinardJB (2016) Theorizing affordances: from request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society36(4): 241–248.
16.
Della PortaD (2020) How Social Movements Can Save Democracy: Democratic Innovations from below. London: John Wiley & Sons.
17.
Della PortaDTarrowS (2005) Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
18.
DianiM (1992) The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review40(1): 1–25.
19.
EarlJKimportK (2011) Digitally Enabled Social Change: Online and Offline Activism in the Age of the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
EgreteauR (2022) Blending old and new repertoires of contention in Myanmar’s anti-coup protests. Social Movement Studies. Epub ahead of print 28 October. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2022.2140650.
21.
EllisonNBVitakJGrayRM, et al. (2014) Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(4): 855–870.
22.
Fernandez-PlanellsAFigueras-MazMPàmpolsCF (2014) Communication among young people in the #Spanishrevolution: uses of online-offline tools to obtain information about the #Acampadabcn. New Media & Society16(8): 1287–1308.
23.
Flesher FominayaC (2020) Democracy Reloaded: Inside Spain’s Political Laboratory from 15-M to Podemos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
FreelonDMcIlwainCClarkM (2018) Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media & Society20(3): 990–1011.
25.
FreemanJ (1983) Granger causality and the times series analysis of political relationships. American Journal of Political Science27(2): 327–358.
26.
GerbaudoP (2018) Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London: Pluto Press.
27.
HaggardSKaufmanR (2021) Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HallNSchmitzHPDedmonJM (2020) Transnational advocacy and NGOs in the digital era: new forms of networked power. International Studies Quarterly64(1): 159–167.
29.
HsiaoYYangY (2018) Activists on the cloud? An empirical test on commitment for online and offline protest participants. Information, Communication & Society21(7): 996–1013.
30.
HuangQE (2020) Facebook not statebook: defining SNS diplomacy with four modes of online diplomatic participation. International Journal of Communication14: 3885–3902.
31.
JenkinsJC (1983) Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology9(1): 527–553.
32.
LeeFLFChanJM (2015) Digital media use and participation leadership in social protests: the case of Tiananmen commemoration in Hong Kong. Telematics and Informatics32(4): 879–889.
33.
LeeFLFChanJM (2018) Media and Protest Logics in the Digital Era: The Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
LeeFLFLiangHChengEW, et al. (2021) Affordances, movement dynamics, and a centralized digital communication platform in a networked movement. Information, Communication & Society25(12): 1699–1716.
35.
LevinDHKobayashiT (2022) The art of uncommitment: the costs of peacetime withdrawals from alliance commitments. European Journal of International Relations28(3): 589–615.
36.
LevitskySWayLA (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LiangHLeeFLF (2021) Opinion leadership in a leaderless movement: discussion of the anti-extradition bill movement in the LIHKG web forum. Social Movement Studies. Epub ahead of print 16 October. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2021.1989294.
38.
LillekerDGKoc-MichalskaK (2017) What drives political participation? Motivations and mobilization in a digital age. Political Communication34(1): 21–43.
39.
LorchJ (2020) Elite capture, civil society and democratic backsliding in Bangladesh, Thailand and The Philippines. Democratization28(1): 81–102.
40.
LührmannALindbergSI (2019) A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?Democratization26(7): 1095–1113.
41.
MaNChengEW (2021) Professionals in revolt: specialized networks and sectoral mobilization in Hong Kong. Social Movement Studies. Epub ahead of print 22 October. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2021.1988914.
42.
McInroyLBBeerOWJ (2022) Wands up! Internet-mediated social advocacy organizations and youth-oriented connective action. New Media & Society24(3): 724–740.
43.
MattoniA (2017) A situated understanding of digital technologies in social movements. Media ecology and media practice approaches. Social Movement Studies16(4): 494–505.
44.
MerceaDIannelliLLoaderBD (2017) Protest communication ecologies. Information, Communication & Society19: 279–289.
45.
MilkmanR (2017) A new political generation: Millennials and the post-2008 wave of protest. American Sociological Review82(1): 1–31.
46.
NepstadSEBobC (2006) When do leaders matter? Hypotheses on leadership dynamics in social movements. Mobilization11(1): 1–22.
47.
NeumanWGuggenheimLJangSM, et al. (2014) The dynamics of public attention: agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication64(2): 193–214.
48.
NisbetMCKotcherJE (2009) A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication30(3): 328–354.
49.
Rhodes-PurdyMRosenblattF (2021) Raising the Red Flag: democratic elitism and the protests in Chile. Perspectives on Politics. Epub ahead of print 16 March. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592721000050.
50.
RossiniPHemsleyJTanupabrungsunS, et al. (2018) Social media, opinion polls, and the use of persuasive messages during the 2016 US election primaries. Social Media and Society. Epub ahead of print 19 July. DOI: 10.1177/2056305118784774.
51.
SevinEIngenhoffD (2018) Public diplomacy on social media: analyzing networks and content. International Journal of Communication12: 3663–3685.
SinpengA (2020) Digital media, political authoritarianism, and Internet controls in Southeast Asia. Media, Culture & Society42(1): 25–39.
54.
SinpengA (2021) Hashtag activism: social media and the #FreeYouth protests in Thailand. Critical Asian Studies53(2): 192–205.
55.
StapnesTCarlquistEHorstC (2022) Responsibility to protest: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of motives for protest participation in Myanmar. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology28(1): 101–110.
56.
Steinert-ThrelkeldZC (2017) Spontaneous collective action: peripheral mobilization during the Arab Spring. American Political Science Review111(2): 379–403.
57.
SurowiecP (2018) Re-visiting ‘Solidarność’: propaganda of protest and campaigning of the social movement. Communication Culture & Critique11(4): 622–641.
58.
TangM (2008) Examining the lagged effect of economic development on political democracy: a panel-VAR Model. Democratization15(1): 106–122.
59.
TarrowS (1989) Democracy and Disorder: Protest and Politics in Italy, 1965–1975. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
TarrowS (2010) The strategy of paired comparison: toward a theory of practice. Comparative Political Studies43(2): 230–259.
61.
ThompsonMR (2021) Pushback after backsliding? Unconstrained executive aggrandizement in the Philippines versus contested military-monarchical rule in Thailand. Democratization28(1): 124–141.
62.
TillyC (1999) Conclusion: from interactions to outcomes in social movements. In: GiugniMMcAdamDTillyC (eds) How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 253–270.
63.
TillyCWoodLJ (2013) Social Movements 1768–2012. New York: Routledge.
64.
TufekciZFreelonD (2013) Introduction to the special issue on new media and social unrest. American Behavioral Scientist57(7): 843–847.
65.
UrmanAHoJCTKatzS (2021) Analyzing protest mobilization on telegram: the case of 2019 anti-extradition bill movement in Hong Kong. PLoS ONE16(10): e0256675.
66.
ValenzuelaSCorreaTGildeZunigaH (2018) Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication35(1): 117–134.
67.
VanessaABAlizadaNLundstedtM, et al. (2022) Autocratization changing nature? Democracy report 2022. Varieties of Democracy Institute. Available at: https://v-dem.net/media/publications/dr_2022.pdf
68.
VanessaABAmandaBEHellmeierS, et al. (2021) How democracies prevail: democratic resilience as a two-stage process. Democratization28(5): 885–907.
69.
VesaJPoutanenPSundR, et al. (2022) An effective “weapon” for the weak? Digital media and interest groups’ media success. Information, Communication & Society25(2): 258–277.
70.
WolfsfeldGSegevESheaferT (2013) Social media and the Arab Spring: politics comes first. The International Journal of Press/politics8(2): 115–137.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
